University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository David E. Snodgrass Moot Court Competition Student Scholarship 11-19-1997 First Place: Khalid Khawar v. Globe International, INC. Seth Gerber William Sloan Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/moot_court Recommended Citation Seth Gerber and William Sloan, First Place: Khalid Khawar v. Globe International, INC. (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/moot_court/31 This Brief - Prize 01 is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in David E. Snodgrass Moot Court Competition by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1997-98 Snodgrass Competition Results KHALID KHAWAR v. GLOBE INTERNATIONAL. INC. RRTFF AWARDS 1. Seth Gerber and William Sloan 2. Michael Misner and John Hurley 3. Laurel Thompson and Lee Adams 4. Gabrielle Handler and Katya Goldberg 5. Jennie Goldsmith and David Levy 6. James Leonard and Lance Peterson 7. Trisha Aylor and Marika Meis 8. Shelby Clark and David Schneck 9. David Jordan and Azniv Ksachikyan 9. Thomas Moyer and Hooman Soleimanzade FIRST PLACE S054868 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KHALID KHAWAR, ) ) Respondent, ) V . GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner. ) PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles The Honorable Richard G. Harris, Judge Review of the Decision of the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven November 19, 1997 Seth M. Gerber Round #1: 6:00 P.M. William M. Sloan 200 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 565-4600 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is Khalid Iqbal Khawar a limited purpose public figure because he invited the press to photograph him, granted a media interview, and was drawn into a controversy through a police investigation and a widely distributed book? 2. Is there clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of actual malice when Globe presented the truth to the public in its article and relied upon a credible and reputable source? 3. Is the appellate court incorrect in its determination that the neutral reportage privilege does not exist in California? TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................... iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 5 ARGUMENT .................................................. 7 I. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPONDENT IS A LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE BECAUSE HE VOLUNTARILY PLACED HIMSELF IN THE PUBLIC EYE, HE WAS INVOLUNTARILY DRAWN INTO THE ASSASSINATION CONTROVERSY, AND HE VOLUNTARILY USED HIS ACCESS TO THE MEDIA TO DEFEND HIS REPUTATION.......... 7 A. Respondent AssiJmed thp Risk of Tn-iur-v to H-is Reputation—^When He .stood Np;:^r Senator Kenn^^Y with—the—In.tent That the international PreSS Corps Would Photograph Him . ... 8 B. Respondent Was Tnvoluntarilv Drawn into the Through the Police Inve.st i aa t i on and Morrow'.s 9 A public—controversy exists of the robust public debate and long-term iiiedj.a attention focusefi on assassination of Roberf Kenn^Hy........... 10 Because of Respondent's presenre on Stage<—he became the subject of pnhiic inguirv and was involuntarily drawn into the controversy....................... 11 By Granting a Televised Interview. Respondent Proved That He Had Access to the Through Which He Defended His Reputsfion ... 14 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Cont. Pagf» II. GLOBE DID NOT ACT WITH ACTUAL MALICE BECAUSE THE ARTICLE PRESENTED THE TRUTH AND THE EDITORS RELIED UPON A CREDIBLE AND REPUTABLE SOURCE......... 19 A. Globe Did Not Make a Deliberate Decision to Purposefully Avoid the Truth: Rather. Globe Presented the Truth by Including Sirhan B. Sirhan^s Photograph in the Article and Identifying Him as Kennedy's Killer............ 22 B. Because Morrow Has Been Linked to the CIA and Received Commendations From Congress, the Jury Had Support for Its Finding That.lle Is a Reputable Source, Making Globe's Failure to Investigate Tnconseqfuential.................... 24 III. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE RIPE FOR THIS COURT TO EXPRESSLY ADOPT THE NEUTRAL REPORTAGE PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT ROBUST AND WIDE OPEN DEBATE ON PUBLIC CONTROVERSIES........................................ 27 A. California Has Already Used the Rationale of the Neutral Reportage Privilege Within the Actual Malice Test and Fair and True Report Privilege....................................... 29 B. Several Courts, Including District Courts Within the Ninth Circuit. Are Adopting and Utilizing the Neutral Reportage Privilege to Protect the Republication of Known Defamatory Falsehoods. Even in Cases Involving Private C. The„_Evidence Supports the Jury's Finding That Globe Neutrally and Accurately Reported Morrow^ s Allegations............................ 36 CONCLUSION 38 111 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES GaSfiS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Curtis Publ^g Co. v. Buttg^ 388 U.S. 130 (1967).............................. 7 Gertz V. Robert Welch. Tna. ^ 418 U.S, 323 (1974).............................. passj_p^ Harte-Hanks Communications. Tnr-. y, connaughton. 491 U.S, 657 (1989)............................. 20 Hutchinson v. Prn’iemi-r^ ^ 443 U.S. Ill (1979)............................. 10,14 New York Times Co. v. Snllivan. 376 U.S. 254 (1964)............................. pa.qc;im St. Amant v. Thompson. 390 U.S. 727 (1968)............................. 19 Time. Inc, v. Firf>sfr>n<=» 424 U.S. 448 (1976)............................. 10,14 Wolston V. Rf^ader^s Di^f^st 443 U.S. 157 (1979)............................. 18 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL Dameron V. Washington Magazine. Inc., 779 F,2d 736 (D.C. Cir. 1985).................... 11-13 Dickey v. CRfl , 583 F.2d 1221 (3d Cir. 1978) ................... 33 Eastwood V.—National Enquirer. Tnc.^ No, 96-55560, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22628, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 1997).................. 20,21 Edwards V. National Audubon Soc^y. Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977)...................... 27,31,37 Foretich v. Capital Citif>s/ARr, 37 F.3d 1541 (4th Cir. 1994) ................... 14 iv I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. Cases. Cont. Bags Law Firm of Daniel P. Foster._P.C. Y■ Turner Rrnad. Sysr.em. Ing.. 844 F.2d 955 (2d Cir. 1988).................... 34 Lerman v. Flynt Distrib. Cq^. 745 F.2d 123 {2d Cir. 1984).................... 10 Newton V. NBC. 930 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1990) .................. 20 Price V- Viking Penguin._Inc., 881 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir. 1989).................. 26 Street v. 645 F.2d 1227 (6th Cir. 1981) . Waldhaum v. Fairchild Publications._InC., 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ................ 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS Barry v. Time. Inc.. 584 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Cal. 1984) ............ 28,33 Prane V- Arizona Republic. 729 F. Supp. 698 (C.D. Cal. 1989).............. 29 Tn re UPl. 106 B.R. 323 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1989).............. 28 Naantaanhnu V. Abernathy, 816 F. Supp. 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) .............. 10,22 Ward V. Mews Group Int^1. Ltd., 733 F. Supp. 83 (C.D. Cal. 1990) .............. 33 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Brown V. Kelly Broad. Co.. 48 Cal. 3d 711 (1989)........................... 19,34 McCoy V, Hearst Corp.. 42 Cal. 3d 835 (1986).......................... 20 V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. Cases■ Cont. £^0^ Reader^s Digest Ass^n v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 244 (1984)........................... CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Antonovich v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1041 {2d Dist. 1991).......... 19,21-23 Copp V. Paxton. 45 Cal. App. 4th 829 (1st Dist. 1996).......... lO Denney v. Lawrence. 22 Cal, App. 4th 927 (4th Dist. 1994).......... 8,9,16 GrillQ V. Smith, 144 Cal. App. 3d 868 {4th Dist. 1983).......... 31,32 Kaufman-v. Fidelity Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 140 Cal. App. 3d 913 (4th Dist. 1983).......... ll Khawar Globe Int ^ 1. Inc . , 51 Cal. App. 4th 14 (2d Dist. 1996)............ passitp Mosesian v. McClatchy Newspapers, 233 Cal. App. 3d 1685 (5th Dist. 1991) ........ 10 Nadel v. Re(?ents of the Univ. of Cal., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1251 (1st Dist. 1994) ........ 10 Rudnick v. McMillan. 25 Cal. App. 4th 1183 (2d Dist, 1994).......... 16,17 Sipple V. Chronicle Publ^g Co., 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040 (1st Dist. 1984) ........ 12,13 Weingarten v. Block, 102 Cal. App. 3d 129 {1st Dist. 1980).......... 8,29-31 OTHER STATE COURTS April V. Reflector-Herald. Inc., 546 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)............ 34 Capuano v. Outlet Co., 579 A.2d 469 (R.I. 1990) ....................... 15 VI TABLE OF AUTHORITIES, Cont. Cases . Cent. £aS£. Liu V. New York News. 183 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. 1992) .................... 15 Statutes Cal. Civ. Code § 47 (West 1997) .................... 32 Other Authorities Mark W. Page, Note, Prire v. Viking Pfinguin, Tnr.: The Neutral Reportage Privilege and Pnhnst. wide Open Debate. 75 Minn. L. Rev. 157 (1990).................... 35 R.W.C., Note, The Bevel or>1nq Privilege q£ Neutral Reportage. 69 Va. L. Rev. 853 (1983)...................... 28 Tracy A. Bateman, Who is—"Public Figure"—for Purposes of Defamation ActlQH, 19 A.L.R.5th 1 (1995).......................... 15,17 vii S054868 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KHALID KHAWAR; ) ) Respondent; ) ) V. ) ) GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) ) Petitioner. ) _______________ __________ ) STATEMENT